The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1887-12-23

| wnicn tney, OF AZ least majority OF them
had done In the previous year, and their
predecessors had done for several years
before, which salary was greater In every
instance than that paid TO any other teach
er. These precedents were not binding
upon the present Directors. II such teacher
were not necessary for the proper and sue
cessful working OF the school, the sums
paid him was an improper expenditure of
the school fund. But the neglect to en-.
ploy such teacher this year Is not attempted
TO be justified upon that ground by the re.
| spondents.
They agree that teacher is necessary as
Principal OF the High school; they agree
that they will elect one to all the place but
TAIL to do so for one month after the school
opened aud from thence to this time. Six
months have elapsed since the passage OF
the resolution to employ such teacher,
ihree months OF the school term have ex.
pred and the disagreement of the Direct
ors still continues, detracting from the use.
fulness OF at least one department of the
schools in the district.
| The evidence outside of that furnished
| by the records aud testimony of the Direc-
tors Is that the High school Is overcrowdei
| Win pupils, the average number attending
being between sixty and seventy.
Miss Nora Finpey, the assistant to the
| Principal, (provued there was Principal
tcstihes that she cannot do justice to such
number OF pupils in their grade; no per-
son having any knowledge of schools could
| doubt this statement. II is confirmed by
tue testimony of pupils who could not be
heard at recitations for want of time on
| the part OF the teacher. Miss Finney CON-
planned of this crowded condition of the
school as she supposed to the Board through
the Secretary. But If she did not complain.
! an Official visit of any Director as required
by law would, at q glance, have disclosed
| the TACT that there were nearly twice as
many pupils as could be properly taught
| by one person.
1t is suggested In argument that this
| matter OF employing teachers; the humber
OF scholars to be taught by one teacher and
tue school at which a pupil shall
he taught, are all matters for the discretion
| OF the Directors, and their discretion. un-
less nagrantly abused, cannot be interfer-
| Tered with by the Court. This is clearly
the law in every matter submitted by the
law to the discretion of Directors 1t is
applicable to cases where the Board has
| exercised its discretion. IL il not appica-
Die where the discretion of one-half the
members leads them to conclusions directly
| opposite to the discretion of the other half
In that case, the house being divided
| against itself, there is no exercise of dis.
cretion by the whole or majority. In
such case individual discretion is not to be
| regarded by the Court.
When Board of Directors has exercised
| its discretion in the performance of ts du-
Ties the abuse of that discretion must be
clear before. the Court will adjudge them
guilty OF official misconduct or neglect of
duty. I'VE must, says Mr.. Justice Lowry.
in Freeman vs.. School Directors, 81 Pa. St
ktp. 1885, "be liberal and generous tow ards
this discretion in reviewing the exercise of
IT," But it is no where held that refusal 10
exercise discretiot, to the detriment of the
interests of the public, shall be treated
with great tenderness.
The statutory remedy for neglect of duty
0y all the members OF a Board of Directors
is that of removal from office. Within the
meaning OF the law all the members do
neglect or refuse to do an act, when by
an official vote there is tie which pre
vents the doing Of the required act
IL Is the duty OF the Board to organize
by the election OF a President, but If all
the members are present and less than four
vote for one p rson, there will be no eec.
tion. Ii IN such case the members persist
In refusing to give one of their number a
majority, the whole Board must be re.
moved.
The same must be the law II a tie vote
prevents the opening of the schoo ls or the
selection OF an admitted and unquestion-
ably necessary Dumbcr of teachers. If
this be not So three School Directors have
the power to nullify the school system in
their district. The Act of 1854 was Intended
to prevent any such result by SUMMARY
proceedings to remove the delinquent
Board and appoint others in their stead.
The evidence In this case, clearly show.
ing that the Board of Directors has refused
and neglected to perform duty epioiped
on them by law, it is our duty to d, clare
their seats vacant.
And now December II, 1887, it is ad-
judged that the first specification in the
complaint filed on the 4th day OF October,
1857, Is true; 1t is therefore ordered and
adJudged that the seats Of Isaiah Hagen.
bnch, j. q. Brown, John laval, VIM.
kabb, VIM Kramer and Henry Rosepstock,
as School Directors of the Town of Blooms
Burg, be aud the same ale hereby declared
vacant. BY THE COURT,
VIM ELWELL, p. J..
Same day, VIM II. Snyder, j. P. Tustin,
t. IL. Ringler, &. 8. Fnrman, Geo. A Her
rlng and @ w. Neal are appointed School
Directors of the school district of the Town
OF Bloomsbury, IN the stead OF the Direct
ors this day removed.
BY THE COURT,
VIM ELWELL, p.
To all which ruling and appointme Mt
counsel for the respondents except.
WIN. ELwELL. p. J. TSeal.1
Dec. II, 1887.